c!pyi Abe We a Nation'^ 



ADDRESS 



Hon. CHARLES SUMNER, 



BEFORE THE 



feto iork |oun| Sen's |lepHwan Iraon, 



COOPER INSTITUTE, 



Tiiesaay Evening* IVov. 19» 1867. 



PUBLISHED BY THE 
NEW YORK YOUNG MEN'S REPUBLICAN UNION. 

1867. 



A D D BE S S. 



Mr. President : — At the close of a bloody Rebellion, instigated 
by hostility to the sacred principles of the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, and inaugurated in the name of State Rights, it becomes us 
now to do what we can to provide that these sacred principles shall 
not again be called in question, and that the fatal pretension of 
State Rights shall not again disturb the national repose. One ter- 
rible war is more than enough ; and since, after struggle, peril 
and sacrifice, where every household has been a sufferer, we are 
at last victorious, it is not too much to insist on all possible safe- 
guards for the future. The whole case must be settled now. The 
constant Duel between the Nation and the States must cease. 
The National Unity must be assured, — in the only way which is 
practical and honest, — through the principles declared by our 
Fathers and inwoven into the national life. 

In one word, the Declaration of Independence must be recog- 
nized as a fundamental law, and State Rights, in all their denation- 
alizing pretensions, must be trampled out forever, to the end that 
we may be in reality as in name, a Nation. 

^Are We a Nation ? 

Are we a Nation ? Such is the question which I now propose, 
believing as I do that the whole case is involved in the answer. 
Are we a Nation ? Then must we have that essential, indestruc- 
tible Unity which belongs to a Nation, with all those central 
pervasive powers which minister to the national life ; then must 
we have that central, necessary authority, inherent in just govern- 
ment, to protect the citizen in all the rights of citizensbip ; and 
then must we have that other central inalienable prerogative of 
providing for the performance of all. the promises solemnly made 
when we first claimed our place as a Nation. 

" National" instead of " Federal." 

Words are sometimes things, and I cannot doubt that our 
country would gain in strength and our people in comprehensive 
patriotism, if we discarded language which in itself implies certain 
weakness and possible disunion. Pardon me if I confess, that I 



have never reconciled myself to the use of the word " Federal " 
instead of " National." To my mind, our government is not 
Federal, but National ; our Constitution is not Federal, but 
National ; our courts under the Constitution are not Federal, 
but National ; our army is not Federal, but National. There is 
one instance where this misnomer does not' occur. The debt of 
our country is always National; — perhaps because this term 
promises in advance additional security to the anxious creditor. 
Liberty and Equality are as much as dollars and cents ; they 
should be National also, and enjoy the same security. 

During the imbecility of the Confederation, which was nothing 
but a league or fcedus, the government was naturally called Fed- 
eral. This was its proper designation. Any other would have 
been out of place, although even then Washington liked to speak 
of the Nation. In summoning the Convention, which framed the 
National Constitution, the States all spoke of the existing gov- 
ernment as " Federal." But after the adoption of that National 
Constitution which completed our organization as one people, the 
designation was inappropriate. It should have been changed. 
If not then, it must be now. New capacities require a new name. 
The word Saviour did not originally exist in the Latin language ; 
but St. Augustine, who wrote in this language, boldly used it, 
saying that tliere was no occasion for it until after the Saviour 
was born. Even if among us in the earlier day there was no 
occasion for the word Nation, there is now. A Nation is born. 

Meaning- of " Nation.'' 

There is something in the word Nation which is suggestive 
beyond anything supplied by the definitions of the dictionary. It 
awakens an echo second only to that of country. It is a word of 
unity and power. It brings to mind intelligent masses, enjoying 
the advantage of organization, for whom there is a Law of 
Nations, — as there is a Law of Nature, — each Nation being a 
unit. Sometimes uttered vaguely, it is simply an intensive, as in 
the familiar words, " only a Nation louder ; " but even here the 
word furnishes a measure of vastness. In ordinary usage, it 
implies an aggregation of human beings, who have reached such 
an advanced stage of political development, that they are no 
longer a tribe of Nomads, like our Indians ; — no longer a mere 
colony, city, principality or State ; but they are one people, 
throbbing with a common life, occupying a common territory, 
rejoicing in a common history, sharing in common trials, and secur- 
ing to each the protection of the common power. We have heard 
also, that a Nation is a people with the consciousness of Human 
Rights. Well did Louis the XVth of France exclaim, when this 
word began to resound in his ears : " What means it ? I am 
king ; is there any king but me ? " The monarch did not know 



that the Nation was more than king, all of which his successor 
learned among the earliest lessons of the Resolution, as this 
word became the inspiration and voice of France. 

The ancients had but one word for State and City ; nor did 
they use the word Nation as it is latterly used. Derived from 
the Latin nascor and natus, signifying " to be born," and " being 
born," it was originally applied to a race or people of common 
descent and language, but seems to have had no reference to- 
a common government. In the latter sense it is modern. Origi- 
nally ethnological, it is now political. The French Communists 
have popularized the kindred word " solidarity," denoting a com- 
munity of interests, which is an element of Nationality. There 
is the solidarity of Nations together, and also the solidarity of a 
people constituting one Nation, being those who, according to a 
familiar phrase, are " all in one bottom." 

England early became a Nation, and this word seems to have 
assumed there a corresponding meaning. Sir Walter Raleigh, 
courtier of Queen Elizabeth and victim of James I., who was a 
master of our language, in speaking of the people of England, 
calls them " our Nation." John Milton was filled with the same 
sentiment, when, addressing England and Scotland, he says : " Go 
on, hand in hand, O Nations, never to be disunited ; be the praise 
and heroic song of all posterity." In the time of Queen Anne, Sir 
William Temple furnished a precise definition, which foreshadows 
the definition of our day. According to this accomplished writer 
and diplomatist, a Nation was " a great number of families, derived 
from the same blood, born in the same country and living' under 
the same government. ^^ Here is the modern element of living 
under the same government. Johnson, in his Dictionary, follows 
Temple substantially, calling it " a people distinguished from 
another people, generally by their language, origin or govern-^ 
ment." Our own Webster, the lexicographer, calls it, " the body 
of inhabitants of a country united under the same government.''* 
Worcester calls it, " a people born in the same country and living- 
under the same government.''^ The French Dictionary of the 
Academy calls it, " the totality of persons born or naturalized 
in a country and living under the same government.''^ Of these 
definitions those of Webster and the French Academy are unques- 
tionably the best ; and of these two that of Webster is the most 
compact. 

These definitions all end in the idea of unity under one 
government. They contemplate a political unity, rather than 
a unity of blood or language. There are undoubted nations 
where these do not exist. The various accents of speech and the 
various types of manhood, with the great distinction of color, 
which we encounter daily, show that there is no such unity here. 
But this is not required. If the inhabitants are of one blood 
and one language, the unity is more complete ; but the esseatial. 



condition is one sovereignty, involving, of course, one citizen- 
ship. It is in ^this sense that Gibbon employs the word, 
when, describing the people of Italy, all of whom were recog- 
nized as Roman citizens, he says : " From the foot of the Alps 
to the extremity of Calabria all the natives of Italy were born 
citizens of Rome. Their partial distinctions were obliterated 
and they insensibly coalesced into one great Nation, united by 
language, manners and civil institutions, and equal to the weight 
of a powerful empire." (^Gibjbon : Decline and Fall; Vol. I., 
p. 32, cap. II.) Here a dominion proceeding originally from 
conquest is consecrated by the concession of citizenship, and the 
great historian hails the coalesced people as a Nation. 

One of our ablest writers of history and constitutional law, 
Prof. Lieber, of Columbia College, New York, has discussed this 
question with learning and power. According to this eminent 
authority, Nation is something more than a word. It denotes that 
polity, which is the normal type of government, at the present 
advanced stage of civilization, and to which all people tend just 
in proportion to their enlightenment and enfranchisement. The 
professor does not hesitate to say that such a polity is naturally 
dedicated to the maintenance of all the rights of the citizen as its 
practical end and object. It is easy to see that the Nation, as 
thus defined, must possess the elements of perpetuity. It is not a 
quicksand, or mere agglomeration of particles, liable to disappear, 
but a solid, infrangible crystallization against which the winds and 
the ranis beat in vain. 

State Rights. 

Opposed to this prevailing tendency is the earlier propensity to 
local sovereignty, which is so gratifying to petty pride and ambi- 
tion. This propensity, assuming various forms, in different ages 
and countries, according to the degree of development, has always 
been a species of egotism. When the barbarous islanders of the 
Pacific imagined themselves the whole world, they furnished an 
illustration of this egotism in its primitive form. Its latest mani- 
festation has been in State Rights. But here a distinction must 
be observed. For the purposes of local self-government and to 
secure its educational and political blessings, the States are of 
unquestioned value. This is their true function, to be praised 
and vindicated always. But local sovereignty, whether in the 
name of State or prince, is out of place and incongruous under a 
government truly National. It is entirely inconsistent with the 
idea of a Nation. Perhaps, its essential absurdity in such a gov- 
ernment was never better illustrated than by the homely apologue 
of the ancient Roman, which so wrought upon the secessionists of 
his day, that they at once returned to their allegiance. According 
to this successful orator, the different members of the human body 



once murmured against the "belly," which was pictured very 
much as our National Government has been, and they severally 
refused all further co-operation. The hands would not carry food 
to the mouth ; nor would the mouth receive it if carried ; nor 
would the teeth perform their office. The rebellion began ; but 
each member soon found that its own welfare was bound up insep- 
arably with the rest, and especially that in weakening the " belly," 
it weakened every part. Such is the discord of State Rights. 
How unlike that Unity, of which the human form with heavep- 
directed countenance is the perfect type, where every part has its 
function, and all are in obedience to that divine mandate which 
created man in the image of God. And such is the Nation. 

Would you know the incalculable mischief of State Rights? 
Our continent furnishes three different examples, each worthy of 
extended contemplation. There are first, our Indians, the Abo- 
rigines of the soil, split into tribes, possessing a barbarous inde- 
pendence, but through this perverse influence kept in constant 
strife, with small chance of improvement. Each chief is a 
representative of State Rights. Turning their backs upon Union, 
they turn their backs upon civilization itself. There is next our 
neighbor republic Mexico, where nature is bountiful in vain, and 
climate lends an unavailing charm, while twenty-three States, 
unwilling to recognize the National power, set up their disorgan- 
izing pretensions and chaos becomes chronic. The story is full of 
darkness and tragedy. The other instance is our own, where 
sacrifices of all kinds, public and private, rise up in blood before 
us. Civil war, wasted treasiire, wounds and death are the wit- 
nesses. All these with wailing voice cry out against that deadly 
enemy lurking in State Rights. But this wail may be heard from 
the beginning of history, saddening its pages from generation to 
generation. 

Warnings of History against State Rights. 

In ancient times, the City-State was the highest type, as in 
Greece, where every city was a state, proud of its miniature sov- 
ereignty. The natural consequences ensued. Alliances, leagues, 
and confederations were ineffectual against State Rights. The 
parts failed to recognize the whole and its natural supremacy. 
Amidst all the triumphs of genius and the splendors of art, there 
was no National life, and Greece died. From her venerable sep- 
ulchre, with its ever-burning funeral lamps, where was buried so 
much of mortal beauty, there is a constant voice of warning, 
which sounds across continent and ocean, echoing, " Beware." 

Rome also was a City-State. If it assumed at any time the 
national form, it was only because the conquering Republic took 
to itself all other communities and melted them in its fiery 
crucible. But this dominion was of force, ending in Universal 



8 

Empire, where the consent of the governed was of little account. 
How incalculably different from a well-ordered Nation, where all is 
natural, and the people are knit together in self-imposed bonds. 
Then came the colossal power of Charlemagne, under whom 
peoples and provinces were accumulated into one incongruous 
mass. Here again was Universal Empire, but there was no 
Nation. 

Legend and song have depicted the paladins that surrounded 
Charlemagne, fighting his battles and constituting his court. 
They were the beginning of that feudal system, which was the 
next form that Europe assumed. The whole country was par- 
celled among chieftains under the various names of duke, count 
and baron, each of whom held a district, great or small, where he 
asserted a local sovereignty, and revelled in State Rights ; and 
yet they all professed a common allegiance. Guizot was the first 
to remark that feudalism, taken as a whole, was a confederation, 
which he boldly likens to what he calls the federal system of the 
United States. It is true that feudalism was essentially federal, 
where each principality exercised a disturbing influence, and 
unity was impossible ; but I utterly deny that our country can 
fall into any such category, unless it succumbs at last to the 
dogma of State Rights, which was the essential element of the 
feudal confederation. 

Feudalism was not a government, it was only a system. During 
•its prevalence the Nation was unknown. Wherever its influence 
subsided the Nation began to appear. And now, wherever its 
influence still lingers on earth, there the yearnings for National 
life, which are instinctive in the popular heart, are for the 
time suppressed. 

Curiously enough, Sweden and Hungary were not brought 
within the sphere of feudalism, and these two outlying lands, left 
free to natural impulses, revealed themselves at an early day as 
nations. When the European Continent was weakened by anar- 
chy, they were already strong in national life, with an influence 
beyond their population or means. It was because tliey were 
nations. 

Feudalism has left its traces in England ; but it was never suffi- 
ciently strong in that sea-girt land to resist the natural tendencies 
to unity, partly from its insular position, and partly from the 
character of its people. At an early day the seven-headed Hep- 
tarchy was changed into one kingdom ; but a transformation not 
less important occurred when the feudal lords were absorbed 
into the government, of which they became a component part, 
and the people were represented in a central parliament, which 
legislated for the whole country with Magna Charta as the 
supreme law. Then was England a Nation ; and just in propor- 
tion as the national life increased has lier sway been felt in the 
world. 



France was less prompt to undergo this change ; for feudalism 
found here its favorite home. That compact country, so formed 
for unity, was the victim of State Rights. It was divided and sub- 
divided. The North and South, speaking the same language, 
were separated by a difference of dialect. Then came the great 
provinces, Normandy, Brittany, Burgundy, Provence, Languedoc, 
and Gascony, with constant menaces of resistance and nullifica- 
tion, while smaller fiefs shared in the prevailing turbulence. 
A French barony was an "autonomic government," with a moated 
town, in contrast with an English barony, which was merged in 
the kingdom. Slowly these denationalizing pretensions were sub- 
dued ; but at last the flag of the French monarchy — the most 
beautiful invention of heraldry — with lilies of gold on a field 
of azure, and angelic supporters, waved over a united people. 
From that time France has been a Nation, filled with a common 
life, burning with a common patriotism, and quickened by a 
common glory. To an Arab chieftain, who, in barbaric simplicity, 
asked the number of tribes there, a Frenchman promptly replied, 
" We are all one tribe." 

Spain also triumphed over State Rights. The Moors were 
driven from Granada. Castile and Aragon were united under 
Ferdinand and Isabella. Feudalism was overcome. Strong in 
the national unity, her kings became lords of the earth. The 
name of Spain was exalted and her language was carried to the 
uttermost parts of the sea. For her Coljimbus sailed ; for her 
Cortez and Pizarro conquered. But these adventurous spirits 
could have done little had they not been filled with the exuber- 
ance of her national life. 

Italy has been less happy. The pretensions of feudalism here 
commingled with the pretensions of City-States. Petty princes 
and petty republics, restless with local sovereignty, constituted 
together a perpetual discord. That beauty, which one of her 
poets calls a " fatal gift," tempted the foreigner. Disunited Italy 
became an easy prey. Genius strove in the bitterness of despair, 
while this exquisite land, where history adds to the charms of 
nature and gilds anew the golden fields, sank at last to become, 
in the audacious phrase of Napoleon, simply a geographical name. 
A checker-board of separate States, it was little else. It had a 
place on the map, as in the memory ; but it had lost its place in 
the present. It performed no national part. It did nothing for 
imitation or remembrance. Thus it continued, a fearful example 
to mankind. Meanwhile the sentiment of nationality began to 
stir. At last it broke forth like the pent-up lava from its own 
Yesuvius, and Garibaldi was its conductor. Separate States, 
renouncing local pretensions, became greater still as })arts of the 
great whole, and Italy stood forth as a Nation, to testify against 
the intolerable jargon of State Rights. All hail to this heroic 
revival, where dissevered parts have been brought together, as 

2 



* 10 

were those of the ancient Deity, and shaped anew into a torni 
of beauty and power. 

But Germany is the most instructive example. Here have 
State Rights triumphed from generation to generation, perversely 
postponing that National Unity which is the longing of the Ger- 
man heart. Stretching from the Baltic to the Adriatic and the 
Alps, penetrated by great rivers, possessing a harmonious expanse 
of territory, speaking one language, filled with the same intellec- 
tual life, and enjoying a common name, which has been historic 
from the days of Tacitus, Germany, like France, seems formed 
for unity. Martin Luther addressed one of his grand letters An 
die Deutsche Nation, To the German Nation ; and these words are 
always touching to Germans as the image of what they desire so 
much. But thus far this great longing has failed. Even the 
empire, where all were gathered under one imperial head, Avas 
only a variegated patchwork of States. Feudalism in its most 
extravagant pretensions still prevails. Confederation takes the 
place of Nationality ; and this vast country, with all its elements 
of unity, is only a discordant conglomerate. The North and 
South are inharmonious, Prussia and Austria representing the 
two opposite sections. But other divisions have been more per- 
plexing. Not to speak of circles or groups, each with a diet of 
its own, which once existed, I mention simply the later division 
into thirty-nine States, differing in government and in extent, 
being monarchies, principalities, dukedoms and free cities, all 
proportionately represented in a general council, or diet, and 
proportionately bound to the common defence, but every one 
filled with the egotism of State Rights. So complete was this 
disjunction, and such were its intolerable pretensions, that inter- 
nal commerce, which is the life-blood of the Nation, was strangled. 
Down to a recent day each diminutive State had its own custom- 
house, where the traveller was compelled to exhibit his passport 
and submit to local levies. This universal obstruction slowly 
yielded to a Zoll Vercin or Customs Union, under which these 
barriers were obliterated and customs were collected on the exter- 
nal frontiers. Here was the first triumph of Unity. Meanwhile 
the perpetual sti-ife between Prussia and Austria broke out in 
terrible battle. Prussia has succeeded in absorbing several of the 
smaller States. But the darling passion of the German heart is 
still unsatisfied. Not in fact, but in aspiration only is Germany 
One Nation. Patriot Poetry takes up the voice, and scorning 
the claims of individual states, principalities and cities, scorning 
also the larger claims of Prussia and Austria alike, exclaims in 
the spirit of a true Nationality, 

That is the German's father-land 
Where Germans all as brothers glow ; 

That is the land ; 
All Germany is thy father-land. 



11 

God grant that the day may soon dawn when all Germany shall 
be one. 

National Unity in our Country, 

Confessing the necessity of a true national life we have con- 
sidered what is a Nation, and how the word itself implies inde- 
structible unity under one government with common rights of 
citizenship ; a,nd then we have seen how this idea has grown with 
the growth of civilization, slowly conquering the adverse preten- 
sions of State Rights, until at last even Italy became one Nation, 
while Germany was left still struggling for the same victory. And 
now I come again to the question with which I began. 

Are we a Nation ? Surely we are not a City-State, like Athens 
and early Rome in antiquity, or like Florence and Frankfort in 
modern times ; nor, whatever may be the extent of our territory, 
are we an empire cemented by conquest, like that of later Rome, 
or like that of Charlemagne ; nor are we a feudal confedera- 
tion, with our territory parcelled among local pretenders ; nor are 
we a confederation in any just sense. From the first settlement of 
the country down to the present time, whether in the long annals 
of the colonies, or since the colonies were changed into states, 
there has been but one authentic voice ; now breaking forth in 
organized effort for union ; now swelling in that majestic utterance 
of the people, the Declaration of Independence ; now sounding in 
the scarcely less majestic utterance of the people, the opening words 
to the constitution of the United States, and then again leaping 
from the hearts of patriots. All these, at different times, and in 
various tones, testify that we are one people, under one sovereignty, 
vitalized and elevated by a dedication to Human Rights. 

Of the present thirty-six States, only thirteen were originally 
colonies. All the rest have been founded on territory which was 
the common property of the people of tlie United States, and they 
have been received into the fellowship of government aim citizen- 
ship' at their own request. If on any ground one of the original 
thirteen might renounce its obligations to the Union, it would 
not follow that one of the new States, occupying the common 
territory could do likewise. It is little short of madness to 
attribute such a denationalizing prerogative to any State, whether 
new or old. For better or worse we are all bound together in 
one indissoluble bond. The National Union is a knot, which, m 
an evil hour, the sword may cut, but which no mortal power can 
unloose without the common consent. 

Common Citizenship among the Colonies. 

From tlic earliest landing, this knot has been tying tighter and 
tighter. There were two ways in which it promptly sliowed itself: 
first, in the common claim of the rights of British subjects, and 



12 

secondly, in the common rights of citizenship co-extensive with 
. the colonies, and the consequent rights of every colony in every 
other colony. 

The colonies were settled separately, under different names, 
and each had its own local government. But no local government 
was allowed in any colony to restrict the rights, liberties and 
immunities of British subjects. This was often declared Above 
all charters or local laws were tlie imprescriptible safeguards of 
Magna Charta, which were common to all the inhabitants. 
On one occasion, the legislature of Massachusetts reminded the 
king's governor of these safeguards in memorable words, saying: 
" We hope we may, without offence, put your excellency in mind 
of that most grievous sentence of excommunication, solemnly 
denounced by the church in the name of tlie sacred Trinity, in 
the presence of King Henry the Third and the estates of the 
realm, against all those who should make statutes^ or observe 
them, being made contrary to the liberties of Magna Charta.''* 
(^Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts, Vol. III., p. 472.) 
Massachusetts, on this occasion, spoke for all the colonies. Clearly 
the enjoyment of common rights was a common bond, constitut- 
ing an element of nationality. In proportion as these rights 
grew more important, the common bond grew stronger. 

The rights of citizenship in the colonies were derived from 
common relations to the mother country. No colonist could be 
made an alien in any other colony. As a British subject he had 
the freedom of every colony with the right of making his home 
there and of inheriting lands. Among all the colonies there 
was a common and interchangeable citizenship or inter-citi- 
zenship. The very rule of the Constitution then began, that " the 
citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and 
immunities of citizens in the several States." Here again was 
another element of nationality. If not at that time/eZ/oi^-citizens, 
all were ^ least /e//oif;-subjects. Fellowship had begun. Thus 
in the earliest days, even before Independence, were the colonists 
One People, with one sovereignty, afterwards renounced. 

Longing for Union arnong the Colonies. 

Efforts for a common government on this side of the ocean soon 
showed themselves. The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth in 1620. 
As early as 1642, only twenty-two years later, there was a confed- 
eration under the name of "the United Colonies of New 
England," formed primarily for the common defence ; and here is 
the'^first stage of Nationality on this continent. In the preamble 
to the Articles the parties declare : " We, therefore, do con- 
ceive it our bounden duty without delay to enter into a present 
consociation amongst ourselves for mutual help and strength 
in all our future concernments, that, as in nation and religion, so 



13 

in other respects, we he and continue OneP (JPaifrey's History of 
New England, Vol. I., p. 624.) Better words could not mark the 
beginning of a Nation. A distinguished character of the time, 
after recording the difficulties encountered by the articles, says : 
" But being all desirous of union and studious of peace, they readily 
yielded to each other in such things as tended to common utility, 
so as, in some two or three meetings, they lovingly accorded^ 
(^Winthrop^s Journal, Yol. II., p. 99.) Encouraged by this " loving 
accord," another proposition was brought forward in Massachusetts 
" for all the English within the United Colonies to enter into a 
civil agreement for the maintenance of religion and our civil liber- 
ties.'" (^Ibid, p. 160.) More than a century elapsed before this 
aspiration was fulfilled ; but here was the germ of future union. 

Meanwhile the colonies grew in population and power. No 
longer merely scattered settlements, they began to act a part in 
history. Anxious especially against French domination, which 
already existed in Canada and was extending along the lakes to 
the Mississippi, they came together in Congress at Albany in 1754 
to take measures for the common defence. Delegates from seven 
colonies were present, being from all north of the Potomac. Here 
the genius of Benjamin Franklin prevailed. A plan was presented 
by this master mind, providing for what was called " a general gov- 
ernment," administered by a " President-General," where each 
colony should have representatives in proportion to its contribu- 
tions, Massachusetts and Virginia having seven each, while New 
York had only four ; and the first meeting of the " general gov- 
ernment " was to be at Philadelphia. Local jealousy and preten- 
sion were too strong at the time for such a Union, and it found 
no greater favor in England, for there Union was " dreaded as the 
keystone of Independence." In defending this plan, Franklin, 
who had not then entered into the idea of Independence, did not 
hesitate to say, that he looked upon the colonies "as so many 
counties gained to Great Britain," thus using an illustration, 
which most forcibly suggested actual Unity. But though this 
experiment failed, it revealed the longing for one cis-Atlantic 
government, and showed how, under other auspices, it might be 
accomplished. 

Scarcely ten years passed before this same yearning for a com- 
mon life appeared again in tli'e Colonial Congress at New York, 
convened in 1765, on the recommendation of Massachusetts, to 
arrest the tyranny of the Stamp Act, and assaults upon the com- 
mon liberties. Nine Colonies were represented, and after deliber- 
ation they united in a Declaration of Rights common to all. 
Here was the inspiration of James Otis, the youthful orator of 
Freedom, whose tongue of flame had already flashed the cry, 
" Taxation without representation is tyranny," and that other 
cry, worthy of perpetual memory, " Equality and the Power of 



14 

the Whole without distinction of color." Such were the voices 
that heralded our Nation. 

An American Commonwealth. 

The mother country persisted ; and just in the same proportion 
the spirit of Union in the Colonies was aroused. Meanwhile that 
inflexible Republican, Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts, brooding 
on the perils to liberty, conceived the idea of what he called a 
" Congress of American States," out of whose deliberations should 
come what he boldly proclaimed " An. American Commonwealth; " 
(^Wells^s Life of Samuel Adams, Vol. II., pp. 90, 94 ;) not several 
Commonwealths ; not thirteen, but One. Here in one brilliant 
flash was revealed the image of National Unity, while the word 
" Commonwealth," denoted that common weal which all should 
share. The declared object of this burning patriot was " to 
answer the great purpose of preserving our liberties," meaning, 
of course, the liberties of all. Better words could not be chosen 
to describe a republican government. This was in 1773. As 
each Colony caiight the echo it stirred with national life. Dele- 
gates were appointed, and in 1774 a Congress called " Conti- 
nental," containing a representation from twelve Colonies, was 
organized at Philadelphia. The Cojigress undertook to speak 
in the name of " the good people " of the Colonies. Here was a 
national act. In the Declaration of Rights which it put forth, 
fitprecursor of the Declaration of Independence, it grandly claims 
that, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the British 
constitution and the several charters, all the inhabitants are 
" entitled to life, liberty and property," and then announces 
" that the foundation of English liberty and of all free govern- 
ment is a rig-ht in the people to participate in their legislative 
council^ (^Stori/^s Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol. 1., 
§ 194, note.} Here was a claim of popular' rights as a first prin- 
ciple of government. Proceeding from a Congress of all, such a 
claim marks yet another stage of national life. 

The next year witnessed a second Continental Congress, also at 
Philadelphia, which entered upon a mightier career. Proceeding 
at once to exercise national powers, this great Congress undertook 
to put the Colonies in a state of defence, authorized the raising of 
troops, framed rules for the government of the army, commenced 
the equipment of armed vessels, and commissioned George Wash- 
ington as " general and commander-in-chief of the army of the 
United States and of all the forces raised or to be raised by them 
for the defence of American Liberty." Here were national acts, 
which history cannot forget, and their object was nothing less 
than American Liberty. It was American Liberty which Wash- 
ington was commissioned to defend. Under these inspirations 
was our Nation born. The time had now come. 



15 



Declaration of Independence made a New Nation. 

Independence was declared. Here was an act which, from 
beghming to end, in every particular and all its inspirations 
was National, stamping upon the whole people Unity in the support 
of Human Rights. It was done " in the name and by authority 
of the good people of these colonies," called at the beginning " one 
people ;" and i^ was entitled " Declaration by the representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled," without 
a word of separate sovereignty. As a National act it has two 
distinct features : first, as a severance of the relations between 
the " united colonies " and the mother country ; and, secondly, as 
a declaration of self-evident truths on which this severance was 
justified, and the new Nation was founded. It is the " united 
colonies " that are declared to be free and independent States ; 
and this act is justified by the sublime declaration, that all men 
are created equal, with certain inalienable rights, and that to 
secure these rights governments are instituted among , men, 
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. 
Here was that " American Commonwealth," the image of National 
Unity, dedicated to Human Rights which had enchanted the 
vision of the early patriot, as he sought new safeguards for Liberty. 
Here was a new Nation, with new promises and covenants, such 
as liad never been made before. The constituent authority from 
which it proceeded was " the people." The rights which it promised 
and covenanted were the equal rights of all ; not the rights of 
Englisbmen, but the rights of man. It is on this account that 
our Declaration has its great meaning in history ; on this account 
our Nation became at once a source of light to the world. Well 
might the sun have stood still on that day to witness a kindred 
luminary as it ascended into the sky. 

In this sudden transformation where was the sovereignty ? It 
wa^ declared that the united colonies are and of right ought to be 
free and independent States. It was never declared that the 
separate colonies were so of right. Plainly they never were so 
in fact. Therefore, there was no separate sovereignty either of 
right or in fact. The sovereignty anterior to Independence was 
in the mother country ; afterwards it was in the people of the 
United States, who took the place of the mother country. As the 
original sovereignty was undivided, so also was that sovereignty 
of tlie people which became its substitute. If authority were 
needed for this irresistible conclusion, I might find it in the work 
of the great commentator on the Constitution, Mr. Justice Story, 
and in that powerful discourse of John Quincy Adams, entitled 
The Jubilee of the Constitution., in both of which the sovereignty 
is accorded to the people and not to the States. Nor should I 
forget that rarest political genius, Alexander Hamilton, who. 



16 

regarding these things as a contemporary, declared most tri- 
umphantly that "the Union had complete sovereignty;" that 
" the Declaration of Independence was the fundamental Consti- 
tution of every State ; " and finally, that " the Union and Inde- 
pendence of these States are blended and incorporated in the 
same act." (^Federalist, Historical Notice, by J. C. Hamilton, 
p. 59.) Such was the great beginning of our national life. 

Denationalizing Experiment of Confederation. 

A beautiful meditative poet, whose words are often most 
instructive, confesses, that we may reach heights which we cannot 
hold ; 

" And the most difficult of tasks to keep 
Heights which the soul is competent to gain." 

Our Nation found it so. Only a few days after the great Declara- 
tion in the name of " the people," Articles of Confederation were 
brought forward in the name of " the States." These were evi- 
dently drawn before the Declaration, and were in the hand- 
writing of John Dickinson, then a delegate from Pennsylvania, 
whom the eldest Adams calls " the bell-wether of the aristocratic 
flock," and who was the orator against the Declaration. It was 
natural that an opponent of the Declaration should favor a system 
which forgot the constituent sovereignty of the people, and made 
haste to establish State Rights. These articles were not readily 
adopted. There was hesitation in Congress, and then hesitation 
among the States. At last, on the 1st of March, 1781, Maryland 
gave her tardy adhesion, and this shadow of a government began. It 
was a pitiful sight. The Declaration was sacrificed. Instead 
of " one people," we were nothing but " a league " of states ; and 
our Nation, instead of drawing its quickening life from " the good 
people," drew it from a combination of " artificial bodies ; " 
instead of recognizing the constituent sovereigi^ty of the people, 
by whose voice Independence was declared, it recognized only the 
pretended sovereignty of States ; and to complete the humiliating 
transformation, the National name was called "the style," being 
a term which denotes sometimes title and sometimes copartner- 
ship, instead of unchangeable unity. Such an apostacy could not 
succeed. 

Even before this denationalizing framework was adopted its 
failure had begun. The Confederation became at once a byword 
and a sorrow. It was- not fit for war or peace. It accomplished 
nothing national. It arrested all the national activities. Each 
State played the part of the feudal chieftain, absorbing power 
to itself and delaying it to the Nation. Money could not be col- 
lected even for national purposes. Commerce could not be regu- 
lated. Justice could not be administered. Rights could not be 



17 

secured. Congress was without coercive power and could act 
only through the local sovereignty. National Unity was impossi- 
ble, and in its stead was a many-headed pretension. The country 
was lapsing into chaos. 

Efforts for Nationality. 

There were two voices which in this darkness made themselves 
heard, both speaking for National Unity on the foundation of 
Human Rights. The singular accord between the two, not only in 
sentiment, but also in language and in the date of utterance, attests 
a concert of action. One voice was that of Congress in an address 
on the close of the war, bearing date 18th April, 1783, where, after 
calling for larger powers in order to maintain the public credit, it 
was said in words worthy of companionship with the immortal 
Declaration : " Let it be remembered that it has ever been the 
pride and boast of America that the rights for luhich she contended 
were the rights of human nature.''^ {Hickey^s Constitution, p. 
140.) The other voice was that of Washington, in a general 
order, also bearing date 18th April, 1783, announcing the close of 
the war, where, after declaring his " rapture," in the prospects 
before the country, he says, " Happy, thrice happy shall they be 
pronounced hereafter who have contributed anything, who have 
performed the meanest office in erecting this stupendous fabric of 
freedom and empire ; ivho have assisted in protecting the rights of 
human nature.^' QSparks' Washington, Vol. VIII., p. 568.) 
This appeal was followed by a circular letter to the governors, 
dated at Headquarters, where, after saying that it was for the 
United States to determine " whether they will bo respectable and 
prosperous or contemptible and miserable as a Nation,'" Wash- 
ington proceeds to name first among the things essential to 
National well-being, if not even to National existence, what he 
calls " an indissoluble union of the States under one head ; " and 
he adds also that there must be a forgetfulness of "local prejudices 
and politics," and that " liberty" must be at the foundation of the 
whole structure. (^Ibid, p. 443 ) Soon afterwards appearing 
before Congress to surrender the trust committed to him as com- 
mander-in-chief, he hailed the United States as a "Nation," and 
also as " our dearest' country," thus embracing the whole in his 
heart, as for seven years he had defended the whole by his 
prudence and valor. {Ibid, p. 504.) 

An incident of a different character testified to the conscious- 
ness of National Unity. The vast outlying territory, unsettled at 
the beginning of the war, and wrested from the British crown by 
the common blood and treasure, was claimed as a common prop- 
erty, subject to the disposition of Congress for tlie general good. 
One by one, the States yielded their individual claims. The * 
cession of Virginia comprehended all that grand region north-west 
3 



18 

of the Ohio, fertile and rich beyond imagination, where are 
now prosperous States rejoicing in the Union. All these cessions 
were on the condition that the lands " should be disposed of for the 
common benefit, and be settled and formed into distinct repub- 
lican States.'" Here was a National act with a promise of repub- 
lican government, which was the forerunner of the guaranty of a 
republican government in the Constitution of the United States. 

The best men, in their longing for National Unity, all con- 
curred in the necessity of immediate action to save the country. 
Foremost in time, as in genius, was Alexander Hamilton, who 
was prompt to insist that Congress should have " complete sover- 
eignty except as to that part of internal police which relates to the 
right of property and life among individuals and to raising money 
by internal taxes ; " and still further, in words which harmonized 
with the Declaration of Independence, that " the fabric of the 
American empire should rest on the solid basis of the consent of 
the people." (^Historical Notice prefixed to J. C. Hamilton's edition 
of Federalist, pp. 22, 59.) In kindred spirit, Schuyler announced 
" the necessity of a supreme and coercive poiver in the govern- 
ment of these States." {Ibid, p. 24.) Hamilton and Schuyler 
were both of New York, which, with such representatives, natu- 
rally took the lead in solemn resolutions, which, after declaring 
that " the situation of these States is in a peculiar manner criti- 
cal," and that " the present system exposes the common cause to 
precarious issue," concluded with a call for a " general convention 
specially authorized to revise and amend the Confederation." 
Such was the movement which ended in the National Convention. 
Other States followed, and Congress recommended it as " the best 
means of obtaining a form of National Government." Meanwhile, 
Noah Webster, whom you know so well as the author of the 
popular dictionary, in an essay on the situation, published at the 
time, proposed " a new system of government, which should act, 
not on the States, but directly on individuals, and vest in Congress 
full power to carry its laws into effect." (Eliofs Debates, Vol. 
Y., p. 118.) Thus simply was the case stated ; but this proposition 
involved nothing less tlian a National government with supreme 
powers to which the States should be subordinate. 

Jay, Madison and Washington anxious for Nationality. 

Here I mention three illustrious characters, who at this time 
lent the weight of their great names to the national cause, — Jay, 
Madison and Washington, — each in his way without a peer.^ I 
content myself witli a few words from each. John Jay, writing 
to John Adams, at the time our Minister in London, under date 
•of 4th May, 1786, says : " One of the first wishes of my heart is 
to see the people of America become One Nation in every respect ; 
for, as to separate legislatures, I would have them considered with 



19 

relation to the confederacy in the same light in ivhich counties 
stand to the States of which they are parts, viz., merely as districts 
to facilitate the purposes of domestic order and good government." 
(^Life of Jay, Vol. I., 249.) Even in this strong view Jay was not 
alone. Franklin had already led in likening the colonies to " so 
many counties." Madison's desires were diiferently expressed. 
After declaring against " the individual independence of the States " 
on the one side, and " the consolidation of the States into one simple 
republic" on the other side, he sought what he called " a middle 
ground," which, if it varied from that of Jay, was essentially 
national. He would have " a due supremacy of the National 
authority and leave in force the local authorities so far as they 
can be subordinately useful." {Eliot^s Debates, Vol. V., p. 107.) 
Here is the definition of a Nation. Washington stated the whole 
case with his accustomed authority in a letter to Jay, dated 
1st August, 1786. After insisting iipon the importance of a 
" coercive power," he then pleads for national life, saying : " I 
do not conceive we can exist long as a Nation without having 
lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union 
in as energetic a manner as the authority of the State governments 
extends over the several States^ And he then adds : " To be 
fearful of investing Congress, constituted as that body is, with 
ample authority for National purposes^, appears to me the very 
climax of popular absurdity and madness." (^Sparks'' Washing- 
ton, No\. IX., p. 187.) Such were the longings of patriots, all 
filled with a passion for country. But Washington went still fur- 
ther, wheji on another occasion he denounced State Sovereignty 
as "that bantling" and even "that monster." (Jay''s Life, 
Vol. I. p. 258.) 

• The National Convention. 

The Convention, often called Federal,- better called National, 
assembled at Philadelphia in May, 1787. It was a memorable 
body, whose deliberations have made an epoch in the history of 
government. Jefferson and John Adams were at the time 
abroad in the foreign service of the country ; Samuel Adams was 
in service at home in Massachusetts, and Jay in New York ; but 
Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, Gouveneur Morris, 
George Mason, Wilson, Ellsworth and Sherman appeared among 
its members. Washington by their unanimous voice became Pre- 
sident ; and according to the rules of the Convention, on adjourn- 
ment, every member stood in his place until the President had 
passed. Here is a glimpse of tliat august body which art may yet 
picture. Who would not be glad to look upon Franklin, Hamilton 
and Madison, standing in their places while Washington passed. 



20 

" National,"" not " Federal,'^ in the Convention. 

On thfe first day after the adoption of the rules, Edmund Ran- 
dolph of Virginia opened the great business. He began by 
announcing among otlier things that a "Federal government" 
could not produce order or suppress rebellion ; that a " Federal 
government " could not defend itself against encroachments from 
the States, and insisting that the remedy must be found in " the 
republican principle," concluded with a series of propositions 
contemplating a " National government," with what he called a 
"National" legislature in two branches, a "National" executive, 
and a " National" judiciary, the whole crowned by the guarantee 
of a republican government in each State. This series of propo- 
sitions was followed the next day by a simple statement in the 
form of a resolution, where, after setting forth the insufficiency of 
" a union of the States merely Federal," or of " treaties among 
the States as individual sovereignties," it was declared " that a 
National Government ought to be established, consisting of a 
supreme legislative, executive and judiciary." Better words 
could not have been chosen to express the prevailing aspiration 
for national life. The resolution in this form was adopted after 
ample debate. At a later stage, in seeming deference to mistaken 
sensibilities, the word "National" was dropped, and the term "a 
government of the United States " was inserted in its stead ; but 
the latter term equally denoted National Unity, although it did 
not use -the word. The whole clause afterwards found a noble 
substitute in the Preamble to the Constitution, which is the 
annunciation of a National Government, proceeding directly from 
the people, like the Declaration of Independence itself. 

From the beginning to the end of its debates, the Convention 
breathed the same patriotic fervor. Amidst . all difference in 
details, and above the persistent and sinister contest for the 
equal representation of the States, great and small, the sentiment 
for Unity found constant utterance. I have already mentioned 
Madison, and Hamilton, who wished a National government ; but 
there were others not less decided. Gouveneur Morris began 
early by explaining the difference between "Federal" and 
" National." The former implied " a mere compact, resting on 
the good faith of the parties ; " the latter " had a complete and 
compulsive operation." (^Eliot's Debates, Vol. V, p. 133.) Con- 
stantly this impassioned statesman protested against State Rights, 
insisting that the States were " nothing more than colonial corpo- 
rations ; " (^Ibid, p. 286 ;) and exclaiming on one occasion, that 
" we cannot annihilate them, but we may take out the teeth of 
the serpents." (^Ibid, p. 277.) Wilson was a different character, 
gentle by nature, but informed by studies in jurisprudence and 
t)y the education which he had brought from his Scottish home. 
He was for a National government, and did not thiiik it incon- 



21 

sistent with " the lesser jurisdiction of States," which he would 
preserve ; he would not " extinguish these planets, but keep them 
in their proper orbits for subordinate purposes." Qbid, p. 169.) 
He was too much of a jurist to admit " that when the colonie^s 
became independent of Great Britain, they became independent of 
each other," and he insisted that they became independent, " not 
individually, but unitedly." {Ibid, p. 231.) Elbridge Gerry, of 
Massachusetts, was as strong on this point as Gouveneur Morris, 
insisting that " we never were independent States, were not so 
now, and never could be, even on the principles of the Confed- 
eration." {Ibid, p 259.) Rufus King, also of Massachusetts, 
touched a higher key when he wished that " every man in Amer- 
ica should be secured in all his rights," and that these should 
not be " sacrificed by the phantom of State Sovereignty." (Ibid, 
p. 267.) Good words, worthy of him, who already in the Conti- 
nental Congress had moved the prohibition of slavery in the 
National territories. And Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, 
said in other words of far-reaching National significance that, 
" every freeman has a right to the same protection and security, ^^ 
and then again that, "Equality is the leading feature of the 
United States." {Ibid, pp. 233, 235.) Under such influences 
the Constitution was adopted by the Convention. 

The National Constitution. 

It is needless' to dwell on its features, all so well-known ; 
but there JIre certain points which must not be disregarded 
now. There is especially the beginning. Next after the opening 
words of the Declaration of Independence, the opening words 
of the Constitution are the grandest in history. They sound 
like a majestic overture, fit prelude to the transcendent harmonies 
of National life on a theatre of unexampled proportions. Though 
familiar, they cannot be too often repeated ; for they are in them- 
selves an assurance of popular rights and an epitome of National 
duties : — " We, the people of the United States, in order to form 
a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquil- 
lity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, 
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, 
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of 
America." Thus, by the people of the United States was the 
Constitution ordained and established ; not by the states, nor even 
by the people of the several states, but by the people of the United 
States in their aggregate individuality. Nor is it a league, alli- 
ance, agreement, compact, or confederation, but it is a constitu- 
tion, which in itself denotes an indivisible unity under one 
supreme law, permanent in character ; and this constitution, thus 
ordained and established, has for its declared purposes nothing- 
less than liberty, justice, domestic tranquillity, the con)mon 



22 

defence, the general welfare, and a more perfect union, all of 
which are essentially National, and to be maintained by the 
National arm. The work thus begun was completed by three 
further provisions : first, that lofty requirement, that " the 
United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a repub- 
lican form of government," thus subjecting the states to the 
presiding judgment of the Nation, which is left to determine the 
definition of a republican government ; secondly, the practical 
investiture of Congress with the authority "to make all laws neces- 
sary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested 
by this Constitution in tlie government of the United States, or in 
any department thereof," thus assuring the maintenance of the 
National government, and the execution of its powers through a 
faithful Congress chosen by the people ; and thirdly, the imperial 
declaration, that " this Constitution, and the laws of the United 
States in pursuance thereof, and all treaties under the authority of 
the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing" in 
the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary iiotivithstand- 
ing',^^ thus forever fixing the supremacy of the National government 
on a pinnacle above all local constitutions and laws. And thus 
did our country again assume the character and obligations of a 
Nation. Its first awakening was in the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence ; its second was in the National Constitution. 

Consolidation of our Union. 

On its adoption the Constitution was transmitted to Congress with 
a letter from Washington, where, among other things, it is said that 
"in all our deliberations we kept steadily in view that which appears 
to us the greatest interest of every true American — the Consolida- 
tion of our Union — in which is involved our prosperity, safety, 
perliaps our national existence." (^Hickey^s Constitution, p. 188.) 
It is enough that this letter is signed George Washington ; but it 
is not to be considered merely as the expression of his individual 
sentiments. It was unanimously adopted by the Convention, on 
the report of the committee that made the final draft of the Con- 
stitution itself, so that it must be considered as belonging to this 
great transaction. By its light the Constitution must be read. 
If any body is disposed to set up the denationalizing pretensions 
of State Rights under the Constitution, let him bear in mind this 
explicit declaration, that throughout all the deliberations of the 
Convention, the one object kept steadily in view was the Consol- 
idation of our Union. Such is the unanimous testimony of the 
Convention, authenticated by George Washington. 

The Constitution was next discussed in the States. It was 

vindicated as creating a National government, and it was opposed 

abo on this very ground. Thus from opposite quarters comes 

ncurring testimony. In Connecticut, Mr. Johnson, who 



23 

had been chairman of the committee that reported the final 
draft, said in reply to the inquiries of his constituents, " that 
the Convention had gone upon entirely new ground ; that they 
had formed One new iVai^iow out of individual States." (^Web- 
sier^s >FbrA;s, Vol. Ill, p. 479.) George Mason of Va., proclaimed 
at home that " the Confederation of States was entirely changed 
into one consolidated government ; " and he repeated that it 
was " a National government, and no longer a Confederation." 
(^Eliofs Debates, Vol. III., p. 29.) Patrick Henry, in his vigorous 
opposition to the adoption of the Constitution, testified to the 
completeness with which the work of consolidation had been 
accomplished. Inquiring by what authority the Convention had 
assumed to make such a government, he exclaimed : " That this 
is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear. * * Give 
me leave to demand what right had they to say, We, the people ? 
Who authorized them to speak the language of We, the people^ 
instead of We, the States ? If the States are not the agents of 
the compact, it must be one great consolidated government of the 
people of all the States." {Ibid, p. 22.) Then again on another 
occasion the same fervid orator declared with infinite point : " The 
question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing, the expression, We, 
the people, instead of the States.'' {Ibid, p. 44.) Patrick Henry 
was right. The question did turn on that grand expression. We 
the people, in the very frontispiece of the Constitution, filling 
the whole with life-giving power, and so long as it stands there, 
the denationalizing pretensions of State Rights must shrink into 
nothingness. Originally " one people " during colonial days, we • 
have been unalterably fixed in this condition by two National acts : 
first the Declaration of Independence, and then again the National 
Constitution. Thus has that original Unity in which we were 
born been doubly assured. 

Other Tokens of Nationality. 

There are other tokens of Nationality, which, like the air we 
breathe, are so common, that they hardly attract attention ; but 
each has a character of its own. They belong to the " unities " 
of our Nation. 

National Flag. 

(1.) There is the National Flag. He must be cold indeed, who 
can look upon its folds rippling in the breeze without pride of 
country. If he be in a foreign land, the flag is companionship 
and country itself, with all its endearments. Who, as he sees it, 
can think of a State merely ? Whose eyes, once fastened upon its 
radiant trophies, can fail to recognize the image of the whole Nation ? 
It has been called " a floating piece of poetry ; " and yet I know 
not if it have an intrinsic beauty beyond other ensigns. Its highest 
beauty is in what it symbolizes. It is because it represents all, that 



24 

all gaze at it with delight and reverence. It is a piece of bunting 
lifted in the air ; but it speaks sublimely, and every part has a 
voice. Its stripes of alternate red and white proclaim the original 
union of thirteen states to maintain the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence. Its stars of white on a field of blue proclaim that union of 
states constituting our National constellation, which receives a new 
star with every new state. The two together signify union, past 
and present. The very colors have a language, which was officially 
recognized by our fathers. White is for purity ; red, for valor ; 
blue, for justice. And all together, bunting, stripes, stars and 
colors, blazing in the sky, make the flag of our country, to be 
cherished by all our hearts, to be upheld by all our hands. * 

Not at once did this ensign come into being. Its first beginning 
was in the camp before Boston, and it was announced by Wash- 
ington in these words : " The day which gave being to the new 
army, we hoisted the Union ffag", in compliment to the United 
Colonies." (^Schuyler Hamilton on American Flag-,ip. 55.) The 
National forces and the National Flag began together. Shortly 
afterwards, a fleet of five sail left Philadelphia amidst the acclama- 
tions of the people, according to the language of the time, " under 
the display of a Union Jlag, with thirteen stripes." (^Ibid, p. 65.) 
This was probably the same flag, not yet matured into its present 
form. In its corner, where are now the stars, were the crosses of 
St. George and St. Andrew, red and white, originally representing 
England and Scotland, and when conjoined, after the union of 
those two countries, known as the Union. To these were added 
the thirteen stripes, alternate red and white, and the whole was 
hailed at the time as the Great Union Flag. The states repre- 
sented by the stripes were here in subordination to the National 
Unity, represented by the two crosses. But this form did not con- 
tinue long. Congress, by a resolution adopted 14th June, 1777, and 
made public 3d September, 1777, determined " that the Flag of the 
United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white ; that 
the Union be thirteen stars, white on a blue field, representing a 
new constellation." Here the crosses of St. George and St. 
Andrew gave place to white stars on a blue field ; the familiar 
symbol of British Union gave place to another symbol of Union, 
peculiar to ourselves ; and this completed our National Flag, 
which a little later floated at the surrender of Burgoync. Long 
afterward, in 1818, it was provided by Congress that a star be 
added on the admission of a new state, " to take effect on the 
fourth of July next succeeding such admission." Thus in every 
respect, and at each stage of its history, the National Flag testifies 
to the National Unity. The whole outstretched, indivisible country 
is seated in its folds. 

There is a curious episode of the National Flag, which is not 
without its value. As far back as 1754, Franklin, while attempt- 
ing to bring about a union of the colonies, pictured them in a 



25 

wood cut under the device of an elongated snake cut into thirteen 
parts with the initials of a colony on each part, and under the 
disjointed whole the admonitory" motto, " Join or die," — thus 
indicating the paramount necessity of union. Afterwards in the 
Ixeats of the revolutionary discussion, this representation was 
adopted as the head-piece of newspapers, and was painted on ban- 
ners ; but when the union was accomplished the divisions and 
initials were dropped and the snake was exhibited whole, coiled in 
conscious power, with thirteen rattles, and under it another 
admonitory motto, " Don't tread on me," — being a warning to the 
mother country. This flag was yellow, and it became the early 
standard of the revolutionary navy, being hoisted for the first time 
by Paul Jones with his own hands. It had a further lesson. A 
half-formed additional rattle was said by Franklin to represent 
" the province of Canada," and the wise man added that " the 
rattles are united together so as never to be separated but by 
breaking to pieces." Thus the snake at one time pictured the 
necessity of union and at another time its indissoluble bond. But 
these symbols were all in harmony with the National Flag, which 
from its first appearance, in all its forms, pictured the common 
cause. 

National Motto. 

(2.) There is next the National Motto, as it appears on the 
national seal and on the national money. A common seal and 
common money are signs of National Unity. In each the supreme 
sovereignty of the Nation is manifest. The first is like the 
National Flag, and stands for the Nation, especially in treaties with 
foreign powers. The second is a national convenience, if not 
necessity, which takes its distinctive character from the Nation, so 
that everywhere it is a representative of the Nation. Each has 
the same familiar motto, E pluribus Unum, a Latin phrase, which 
signifies, Fro7n many One. Its history attests its significance. 

On the 4th July, 1776, the very day of Independence, Benjamin 
Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefierson were appointed a 
committee to prepare a device for a Great Seal. They were the 
identical committee that had already reported the Declaration of 
Independence itself. Their report on the seal was made 10th 
August, 1776 ; and here we first meet the National Motto, which 
is in such entire harmony with the Declaration by which we were 
made " one people." Questions of detail intervened, and no con- 
clusion was reached until 13th June, 1782, when the present seal 
was adopted, being the American bald eagle, with the olive branch 
in one talon and a bundle of thirteen arrows in the other, and in 
his beak a scroll, bearing the inscription, E pluribus Unum. 
Familiar as these words have become, — so that they haunt the 
memory of manhood, youth and childhood alike, — it is not always 
considered how completely and simply they tell the story of our 



26 

national life. Out of many colonies was formed One Nation. 
Former differences were merged in this Unity. No longer many, 
they were one. The Nation by its chosen motto repeats perpet- 
ually, " We are one ; " and the Constitution echoes' back, " We, 
the people of the United States." 

National Name. 

(3.) There is next the National Name, which of itself implies 
National Unity. The States are not merely allied, associated, 
coalesced, confederated, but they are united, and the constitution, 
formed to secure a more perfect union, is " for the United States 
of America," which term was used as the common name of the 
Nation. 

A regret has been sometimes expressed by patriots and by 
poets, that some single term was not originally adopted, which of 
itself should exclude every denationalizing pretension, and be a 
talisman for the heart to cherish and for the tongue to utter — as 
when Nelson gave his great watch-word at Trafalgar, " England 
expects every man to do his duty." Occasionally it has been 
proposed to call the country Columbia, and thus restore to the 
great discoverer at least a part of the honor which was taken from 
him when the continent was misnamed America. Alleghania has 
also been proposed, but this word is too obviously a mere invention, 
besides its unwelcome suggestion of alligator. Another proposi- 
tion has been Vinland, being the name originally given by the 
Northmen, .four centuries before Christopher Columbus. Pro- 
fessor Lieber, on one occasion, called the nation Freeland, a name 
to which it will be soon entitled. Even as a bond of union such a 
name would not be without value. As long ago as Herodotus, 
it was said of a certain people, that they would have been the 
most powerful in the world, if they had been united, but this was 
impossible from the want of a common name. 

Forgetting that the actual name implies Unity, and when we 
consider its place in the preamble of the Constitution, that it 
implies Nationality also, the partisans of State Rights argue 
from it against even the idea of country ; and here I have a 
curious and authentic illustration. In reply to an inquirer, who 
wished a single name, Mr. Calhoun exclaimed, " Not at all ; we 
have no name because we ought to have none ; we are only States 
united, and have no country." Alas ! if it be so ; if this well- 
loved land, for which so many have lived, for which so manjr have 
died, is not our country. But this strange utterance shows how 
completely the poison of these pretensions had destroyed the 
common sense as well as the patriotism of this much mistaken man. 

Names may be given by sovereign power to new discoveries or 
settlements ; but, as a general rule, they grow out of the soil. 
They are autochthonous. Even Augustus, when ruling the 



27 

Roman world, confessed that he conld not make a new word, and 
Plato tells us that " a creator of names is the rarest of human 
. creatures." Reflecting on these things we may appreciate some- 
thing of the difficulty in the way of a new name at the forma- 
tion of the National Constitution. As this was little more than 
a transcript of prevailing ideas and institutions, it was natural 
to take the name used in the Declaration of Independence. 

And yet it must not be forgotten that there was a name of a 
different character which was much employed. Congress was 
called " continental ; " the army " continental ; " the money " conti- 
nental," — a term certainly of unity as well as vastness. But 
there was still another National designation, accepted at home and 
abroad. Our country was called " America," and we were called 
" Americans " Here was a natural, unsought and instinctive 
name — a growth and not even a creation — implying National 
unity and predominance, if not exclusive power, on the continent. 
It was not used occasionally or casually, but constantly ; not 
merely in newspapers, but in official documents. Not an address 
of Congress; not a military order ; not a speech, which does not 
contain this term, at once so expansive and so unifying. At the 
opening of the hrst Continental Congress, Patrick Henry, in another 
mood from that of a later day, announced the National Unity under 
this very name. After decljiring the boundaries of the several 
colonies effaced, and the distinctions between Virginians, Penn- 
sylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Englanders as no more, he 
exclaimed in words of comprehensive patriotism, " I am not a 
A^irginian, but an American.''^ Congress took up the strain and 
commissioned Washington as commander-in-chief of the armies 
" for the defence of American liberty ; " and Washington himself, 
in his first general order at Cambridge, on assuming his great 
command, announced that the armies were " for the defence of the 
liberties of America ; " and in a letter to Congress just before the 
battle of Trenton he declared that he had labored " to discourage all 
kinds of local attachments and distinctions of country, denominat- 
ing the ivliole hy the greater naine of America^ Then at the close 
of the war, in its immortal address, fit supplement to the Declara- 
tion of Independence, Congress said : "Let it be remembered that 
it has ever been the pride and boast of America that the rights for 
which she contended were the rights of Human Nature." And 
Washington again, in his letter to Congress communicating the 
National Constitution, says in other words, which, like those of 
Congress, cannot be too often quoted, that '' the consolidation of the 
Unionis the greatest interest of ei?er^ true American.'" Afterwards 
in his Farewell Address, which from beginning to end is one per- 
suasive appeal forNationality, after enjoining upon his fellow-citizens 
that" Unity of government which constitutes them owe people,'" 
he gives to them a National Name, and this was his legacy : " The 
name American, which belongs to you in your National capacity, 



28 

must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any 
appellation derived from local discriminations." Thus did Wash- 
ington put aside all those baneful pretensions under which the 
country has suffered so much, even to the extent of adopting a 
National Name, which, like the Union itself, should have a solid 
coercive power. 

It is not impossible that, in the lapse of time, history will 
vindicate the . name adopted by Washington, which may grow 
as the Republic, until it becomes the natural designation of 
one country. Our fathers used this term more wisely than 
they knew ; but they acted under Providential guidance. Is it 
not said of God that he has given names to the stars, " calling 
them by the greatness of his might ? " (Isaiah, chaii. xl., 26.) 
Is it not said also that God will make him who overcometh a pillar 
in the temple and give to him "a new name?" ( Revelation, 
chap iii., 12.) So as our stars multiply, and the Nation over- 
cometh its adversaries, persuading all to its declared principles, 
everywhere on the continent, it will become a pillar in the temple, 
and the name of the continent itself will be needed to declare alike 
its unity and its power. 

Geographical Unity. 

(4.) To these " unities " derived from history and the heart of 
/the people, may be added another where nature is the great 
teacher; I refer to the geographical position and configura- 
tion of our country, if not of the whole continent, marking 
it for One Nation. Unity is written upon it by the Almighty 
Hand. In this respect it differs much from Europe, where 
for generations seas, rivers and mountains kept people apart 
who had else " Like kindred drops commingled into one." 
There is no reason why they should not commingle here. 
Nature in every form is propitious. Facility of intercourse, 
not less than common advantage, leads to unity ; but these 
are ours. Here are navigable rivers, numerous and famous, 
being so many highways of travel, and a chain of lakes, each 
an inland sea. Then there is an unexampled extent of coun- 
try adapted to railways; and do not forget that with the rail- 
way is the telegraph, using the lightning as its messenger, so 
that the interrogatory of Job is answered, " Canst thou send 
lightnings that they may go ? " The country is one open expanse 
from the frozen Arctic to the warm waters of the Gulf, and from 
the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains, and there, science already 
supplies the means of overcoming this barrier, which in other 
» days would have marked international boundaries. The Pacific 
Railway will neutralize these mountains and complete the geo- 
graphical unity of the continent. The slender wire of the tele- 
graph, when once extended, is an indissoluble tie ; the railway is 



29 

an iron band. But these depend upon opportunities which nature 
supplies, so that nature herself is one of the guardians of our 
Nationality. 

He has studied history poorly, and human nature no better, 
who imagines that this broad compacted country can be parcelled 
into dijfferent Nationalities. Where will you run the thread of 
partition ? By what river ? Along what mountain ? On what 
line of latitude or longitude ? Impossible. No line of longitude 
or latitude, no mountain, no river can become the demarcation. 
Every state has rights in every other state. The whole country 
has a title, which it will never renounce, in every part, 
whether the voluminous Mississippi as it pours to the sea, or 
that same sea as it chafes upon our coast. As well might we -of 
the East attempt to shut you of the West from the ocean, as you 
attempt to shut us from the Mississippi. The ocean will always 
be yours, as it is ours, and the Mississippi will always be ours, as 
it is yours. 

Our country was planned by Providence for a united and homo- 
geneous people.'' Apparent differences harmonize. Even climate, 
which passes through all gradations from the North to the South, 
is so tempered, as to present an easy uniformity from the Atlantic 
to the Rocky Mountains. Unmeasured supplies of all kinds, min- 
eral and agricultural, are at hand ; the richest ores and the most 
golden crops, with the largest coal-fields of the world below, and the 
largest corn-fields of the world above. Strabo said of ancient Gaul, 
that, by its structure, with its vast plains and considerable rivers, 
it was destined to become the theatre of a great civilization. But 
the structure of our country is more auspicious. Our plains are 
vaster and our rivers are more considerable, furnishing a theatre 
grander than any imagined by the Greek geographer. It is this 
theatre, thus appointed by nature, which is now open for the 
good of mankind. 

Nummary. 

Here I stop, to review the field over which we have passed, and 
to gather its harvest into one sheaf. Beginning with the infancy 
of the colonies, we have seen how with different names and gov- 
ernments, they were all under one sovereignty, with common and 
interchangeable rights of citizenship, so that no British subject in 
one colony could be made an alien in any other colony ; how 
even at the beginning longings for a common life began, show- 
ing themselves in " loving accord ; " how Franklin regarded the 
colonies as " so many counties ; " how the longings increased, 
until, under the pressure of the mother country, they broke forth 
in aspirations for " An American Commonwealth ; " how they 
were at last organized in a Congress called from its comprehensive 
character " Continental ; " how, in the exercise of powers derived 



30 

from the " good people," and in their name, the Continental 
Congress put forth the Declaration of Independence, by which 
the sovereignty of the mother country was forever renounced, 
and we were made " one people," solemnly dedicated to Human 
Rights, and thus became a Nation ; how the undivided sover- 
eignty of all was substituted for the undivided sovereignty of the 
mother country, and embraced all the states as the other sover- 
eignty had embraced all the colonies ; how, according to Franklin, 
the States were locked together, " so as never to be separated, but 
by breaking to pieces ; " how in an evil hour the Confederation 
was formed in deference to the denationalizing pretensions of the 
States ; how the longings for national life continued, and found 
utterance in Congress, in Washington and in patriot compeers ; 
how Jay wished that the States should be like " counties ; " how 
Washington denounced State Sovereignty as " that bantling " and 
" that monster ; " how at last a National Convention assembled, 
with Washington as President, where it was voted that " a 
National Government must be established ; " how in this spirit, 
after ample debate, the National Constitution was formed, with 
its preamble beginning " We the people," with its guaranty of 
a republican government to all the states, with its investiture of 
Congress with all needful powers for the mainteiiance of the 
government, and with its assertion of supremacy over State Con- 
stitutions and laws ; how the Constitution was commended by 
Washington in the name of the Convention as the " consolidation 
of our Union ; " how it was vindicated and opposed as creating 
a National Government ; how on its adoption we again became a 
Nation ; then how our Nationality has been symbolized in the 
National Flag, the National Motto, and the National Name ; and 
lastly, how nature, in the geographical position and configura- 
tion of the' country has supplied the means of National Unity, 
and written her everlasting guaranty. And thus do I now bind 
the whole together into one conclusion, saying to all, we are a 
Nation. 

Nor is this all. Side by side with the growth of National 
Unity was a constant dedication to Pluman Rights, which showed 
itself, not only in the Declaration of Independence, with its 
promises and covenants, but in the constant claim of the rights 
of Magna Charta, the earlier cries of Otis, the assertion, by the 
first Continental Congress, of the right of the people " to partici- 
pate in the legislative council," the commission of Washington as 
Commander-in-chief " in defence of American Liberty," and the 
first general order of Washington on taking command of his forces, 
where he rallies them to this cause ; also in the later proclamation 
of Congress, at the close of the Revolution, that the rights con- 
tended for had been " the rights of Human Nature," and the fare- 
well general order of Washington, bearing the same date, where 
the contest is characterized in the same way, so that Human 



31 

Rights were the beginning and end of the war, while the Nation, 
as it grew into being, was quickened by these everlasting prin- 
ciples, and its faith was plighted to their support. 

Powers essential to the Nation. 

As a Nation, with a place in the family of Nations, we have the 
powers of a nation, with corresponding responsibilities. Whether 
we regard these powers as naturally inhering in the Nation, or as 
conferredupon it by those two title-deeds, the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence and the National Constitution, the conclusion is the same. 
From nature, and also from its title-deeds, our Natiori must have all 
needful powers, y?r5^, for the National defence, foremost among 
which is the power to uphold and defend the National Unity ; 
secondly, for the safeguard of the citizen in all his rights of 
citizenship, foremost among which is Equality the first of rights, 
so that as all owe equal allegiance, all shall enjoy equal protec- 
tion ; and, thirdly, for the support and maintenance of all the 
promises made by the Nation, especially at its birth, being 
baptismal vows which cannot be disowned. These three powers 
are essentially National. They belong to our Nation by the very 
law of its being and the terms of its creation. They cannot be 
neglected or abandoned. Every person, no matter what his birth, 
condition or color, who can raise the cry, " I am an American 
citizen," has a right to require at the hands of the Nation, that it 
shall do its utmost, by all' its central powers, to uphold the 
National Unity, to protect the citizen in the rights of citizenship, 
and to perform the original promises of the Nation. Any failure 
here is apostacy and bankruptcy combined. 

It is vain to say that these requirements are not expressly set 
down in the National Constitution. By ^ law which existed 
before this title-deed of our Nation, they belong to the essential 
conditions of national life. But if not positively nominated in 
the Constitution, they are there in substance ; and this is enough. 
Every word, from " We the people," to the signature, " George 
Washington," is instinct with national life, and there is not a single 
expression taking from the National Government any of its inherent 
powers. From this " nothing " in the Constitution there can come 
nothing adverse to these powers. But there has always been in 
the Constitution a positive injunction on the Nation to guaranty 
" a republican form of government " to all the States ; and who 
can doubt that, in the execution of this guaranty, the Nation may 
exercise all these powers, and provide especially for the protection 
of the citizen in all the rights of citizenship ? There are also 
recent amendments of the Constitution abolishing slavery, and 
expressly securing the " privileges and immunities of citizens " 
against the pretensions of States. Then there is the Declaration 
of Independence itself, which is the earlier title-deed. By that 



32 

sacred instrument we were declared to be " one people," with 
Liberty and Equality for all, and then, fixing forever the rights of 
' citizenship, it was announced that all just government was derived 
only from " the consent of the governed." Come weal or woe, 
that great Declaration must stand forever. Other things may 
fail, but this cannot fail. It is immortal as the Nation itself. It 
is a part of the Nation, and is that part most worthy of immor- 
tality. By it the Constitution must be interpreted, or rather the 
two together are our Constitution — as Magna Charta and the Bill 
of Rights together are the British Constitution. By the Declara- 
tion our Nation was born and its vital principles were announced. 
By the Constitution the Nation was born again and supplied with 
the machinery of government. The two together are our 
National Scriptures, each being a Testament. 

Adverse Pretension of State Rights. 

Against this conclusion there has been from the beginning one 
perpetual pretension in the name of State Rights. The same 
spirit, which has been so hostile to National Unity in other coun- 
tries ; which made each feudal chief a petty sovereign ; which 
for a long time convulsed France ; which for centuries divided 
Italy, and which unhappily still divides Germany, has appeared 
among us. Assuming that communities, which were never 
" sovereign " while colonies, and which became independent 
only by the National power, had in some way, by some sudden 
hocus-pocus, leaped into local sovereignty, and forgetting also that 
two sovereignties cannot co-exist in the same place, as according 
to the early dramatist, 

" Two kings in England cannot reign at once," 

the States insisted upon sovereign powers justly belonging 
to the Nation. Long ago the Duel laegan. The partisans of 
State Rights, plausibly professing to decentralize the government, 
have done everything possible to denationalize it. In the name of 
self-government they have organized local lordships hostile to 
Human Rights. In the name of the States, they have sacrificed 
the Nation. 

This pretension which has constantly shown itself, has broken 
out on three principal occasions. The first was in the effort of 
nullification, which occurred in 1833, where, under the lead of 
Mr. Calhoun, South Carolina attempted to nullify the revenue 
acts of Congress, or, in other words, to declare them void within 
her limits. After encountering the matchless argument of 
Daniel Webster, enforced by his best eloquence, nullification was 
blasted by the thunder-bolt of Andrew Jackson, who, in his 
Proclamation as President thus exposed it, even in the form of 
secession, which it assumed at a later day : " Each State, hav- 



33 

ing expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly 
with other States a single Nation, cannot after that period 
possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break 
a league, but destroys the Unity of a Nation." The pretension 
next showed itself in the Rebellion. And now that the Rebellion 
has been crushed, it re-appears in still another form, by insisting 
that each State at its own will may disregard the universal rights 
of the citizen, and apply a discrimination according to its own 
local prejudices ; thus within its borders nullifying the primal 
truths of the Declaration of Independence. Here again do State 
Rights, in their anarchical egotism, interfere with the National 
Unity.. 

The National Supremacy consistent with Local Self- Government. 

Local self-government, whether in the town, county or state, is 
of incalculable advantage, supplying the opportunities of political 
education, and also a local administration adapted precisely to 
local wants. On this account the system has been admired by 
travellers from abroad, who have found in our "town-meetings" 
the nurseries of the Republic, and have delighted in local exemp- 
tion from central supervisorship. DeTocqueville, who journeyed 
here, has recorded his authoritative praise, and Laboulaye, who 
has visited us only in his remarkable studies, unites with De 
Toqueville. Against that exacting centralization, absorbing every- 
thing to itself, of which Paris is the example, I oppose the 
American system of self government, which leaves the people to 
themselves, subject only to the paramount conditions of national 
life. But these conditions cannot be sacrificed. No local claim 
of self-government can for a moment interfere with the suprem- 
acy of the Nation, in the maintenance of Human Rights. 

According to the wisdom of Plutarch, we must shun those 
pestilent persons who would " carry trifles to the highest magis- 
trate," and, in the same spirit, we must reject that pestilent 
supervisorship which asserts a regulating power over local affairs, 
and thus becomes a giant intermeddler. Let these be decided at 
home in the states, counties and towns to which they belong. 
Such is the genius of our institutions. This is the precious prin- 
ciple of self-government which is at once educator and agency. 
In the former character, it is an omnipresent schoolmaster ; in 
the latter, it is a suit of " chain-armor," which, from its flexibility, 
is adapted to the body of the Nation, so that all the limbs are free. 
•Each locality has its own way in all matters peculiar to itself. 
But the rights of all must be placed under the protection of all ; 
nor can there be any difference in different parts of the country. 
Here the rule must be uniform, and it must be sustained by th^ 
central power radiating to every part of the various empire. 
This is according to the divine Cosmos, which in all its spaces 



34 

is pervaded by one universal law ; it is the rule of Almighty 
beneficence, which, while leaving human beings to the activities 
of daily life and the consciousness of free will, subjects all to 
the same commanding principles. Such centralization is the 
highest civilization, for it approaches the nearest to the Heavenly 
example. Call it imperialism, if you please ; it is simply the 
imperialism of the Declaration of Independence, with all its 
promises fulfilled. It is rendering unto Caesar the things that 
are Caesar's. Already by central power Slavery has been abolished. 
Already by central power all have been assured in the Equality 
of civil rights. 

" Two truths are told 



As happy prologues to the swelling act 
Of the imperial theme." 

It remains now that by central power all should be assured in 
the Equality of political rights. This does not involve necessa- 
rily what is sometimes called the " regulation " of the suffrage by 
the National Government, although this would be best. It simply 
requires the abolition of any discrimination among citizens, incon- 
sistent with Equal Rights. If not by act of Congress, let it be by 
a new amendment of the Constitution; but it must be at once. 
Until this is done, we leave undone what ought to be done, and, in 
our pitiable failure to perform a National duty, justify the saying, 
that " there is no health in us." The preposterous pretension, that 
color, whether of the hair or of the skin, or that any other 
unchangeable circumstance of natural condition may be made the 
*' qualification " of a voter, cannot be tolerated. It is shocking 
to the moral sense and degrading to the understanding. 

As in the Nation there can be but one Sovereignty, so there can 
be but one citizenship. The unity of Sovereignty finds its coun- 
terpart and complement in the unity of citizenship, and the two 
together are the tokens of a united people. Thus are the essen- 
tial conditions of national life all resolved into three ; One 
Sovereignty, One Citizenship, One People. 

Conclusion. 

I conclude as I began. The late Risbellion against the Nation 
was in the name of State Rights ; therefore State Rights in their 
denationalizing pretensions must be overthrown. It proceeded 
from hostility to the sacred principles of the Declaration, of Inde- 
pendence ; therefore, these sacred principles must be vindicated 
in spirit and in letter, so that hereafter they shall be a supreme 
law, co-equal with the Constitution, in whose illumination the 
Constitution must be read, and they shall supply the final 
definition of a Republic for our guidance at home and for an 
example to mankind. 



35 

• 

In this great change we follow nature and obey her man- 
date. By an irresistible law, water everywhere seeks its level 
and finds it ; and so, by a law as irresistible, man seeks the level 
of every other man in rights, and will find it. Human passions 
and human institutions are unavailing to arrest it, — as nature is 
stronger than man, and the Creator is mightier than the creature. 
The recognition of this law is essential to the national cause, for 
so you will work with nature rather than against it, and at the 
same time in harmony with the Declaration of Independence. 
Here I borrow a word from Locke, who, in his Essay on the Human 
Understanding says that, in dealing with propositions, we must 
always find on what they " bottom." Now, in dealing with the 
Rebellion, we find that though in the name of State Rights, it 
" bottomed" on opposition to the law of nature and an open denial 
of the self-evident truths declared by our Fathers, especially of 
that central truth of all, which Abraham Lincoln, at Gettysburg, 
in the most touching speech of all history thus announces : 
" Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on 
this continent a New Nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated 
to the proposition that all men are created equals Slavery was 
" bottomed " on the direct opposite ; and so was the Rebellion, 
from beginning to end. Therefore you must encounter this denial. 
You do not extinguish Slavery ; you do not trample out the 
Rebellion, until the vital truth declared by our Fathers is estab- 
lished and nature in her law is obeyed. To complete the good 
work this must be done. Liberty has been won ; Equality 
must be won also. In England, there is Liberty withftut 
Equality ; in France, Equality without Liberty. The two together 
must be ours. This final victory will be the greatest of the war ; it 
will be the consummation of all other victories. Here must we 
plant the National standard. To this championship I now sum- 
mon you. Go forth, victors in so many fields, and gather now the 
highest palm of all. The victory of ideas is grander far than 
any victory of blood. What battle ever did so much for Humanity 
as the sermon on Mars Hill ? What battle ever did so much as 
the Declaration of Independence ? But sermon and Declaration 
are one, and it is your glorious part to assure the National Unity 
on this adamantine base. 

All hail to the Republic, redeemed and regenerated, one and 
indivisible. Nullification and secession are already like the 
extinct monsters of a former geological period — to be seen only 
in the museum of history. With their extinction must disap- 
pear that captious, litigious and disturbing spirit engendered by 
State Rights. The whole face of the country will l^e trans- 
formed. There will be concord for discord ; smiles for frowns. 
There will be a new consciousness of national life with a cor- 
responding glow. The soul will dilate with the assured Unity of 
the Republic, and all will feel the glory of its citizenship. Since 



36 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 447 883 



that of Rome nothing has been so commanding. Local jealousies 
and geographical distinctions will be lost in the attractions of a 
common country. Then, indeed, there will be no North, no 
South, no East, no West; but there will be One Nation. No 
single point of the compass, but the whole horizon will receive 
our regard. Not the southern cross flaming with beauty ; not 
even the north star, so long the guide of the mariner and the 
refuge to the flying bondman, but the whole star-spread firma- 
ment will be our worship and delight. 

As the Nation stands confessed in undivided sovereignty, the 
states will not cease to perform their appropriate functions. Inter- 
laced, interlocked and harmonized, they will be congenial parts of 
the mighty whole, while Liberty and Equality will be the recog- 
nized birthright of all, and no local pretension can interfere against 
the universal law. There will be a sphere alike for the States and 
Nation. Local self-government, which is the pride of our institu- 
tions, will be reconciled with the National supremacy in the 
maintenance of Human Rights, and the two together will be the 
elemental principles of the Republic. The states will exercise a 
minute jurisdiction required for the convenience of all ; the 
Nation will exercise that other paramount jurisdiction required 
for the protection of all. The reconciliation — God bless the 
^j^OTd ! — thus begun will embrace the people, who, forgetting past 
differences, will feel more than ever that they are one, and it 
will invigorate the still growing Republic, whose original root was 
lit^Je more than an acorn, so that it will find new strength to 
resist the shock of tempest or time, while it overarches the con- 
tinent with its generous shade. Such at least is the aspiration in 
which all may unite. 

" Firm like the oak, may our blest Nation rise, 
No less distinguished for its strength than size; 
The unequal branches emulous unite 
To shield and grace the trunk's majestic height; 
Through long succeeding years and centuries live, 
No vigor losmg from the aid they give." 



